Monday, June 07, 2010

Morality and money

Would a reputable lawyer advise a client to write a contract that is "within the law" but in essence is cheating the public?

Many people consider this situation to be all right for the following reasons:

- it is all about making money, i.e. legal fees
- their duty is to the client (who pays their fees)
- if the law is not clear, it is acceptable for the lawyer to take advantage of the unclarity.

I wonder if the lawyer has a duty that is above making money? Do they have a moral duty to ensure that the society is honest and fair?

I remember an episode in the move "Godfather" where the inhouse lawyer consider it to be his duty to protect the mafia family from being prosecuted under the law, but in all other respects, what the mafia family does is not his concern. Has this type of thinking invaded our society?

The shady practices used to be the work of small time lawyers who seek quick profit. In recent years, these types of practices appear to be acceptable to reputable firms, who have become motivated by greed.

Tan Kin Lian

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

You find this rampant in the insurance industry.
Example: cashback or anticipated endowment has been known for its rip off and poor return and scam but becuase somewhere there is company selling it and it is popular with women and since it is 'popular' and women like it, it is alright and if we don't have one to sell this company will corner the whole market.So one after the other started to produce this scam product.
It is like saying if we don't rape the girl others will, we might as well rape her now.
This is the 'ethics' of this industry now and practised by both the company and their insurance agents.
Put it in another way 'can't beat them join them' and throw ethics out of the window.

Anonymous said...

You find this rampant in the insurance industry.
Example: cashback or anticipated endowment has been known for its rip off and poor return and scam but becuase somewhere there is company selling it and it is popular with women and since it is 'popular' and women like it, it is alright and if we don't have one to sell this company will corner the whole market.So one after the other started to produce this scam product.
It is like saying if we don't rape the girl others will, we might as well rape her now.
This is the 'ethics' of this industry now and practised by both the company and their insurance agents.
Put it in another way 'can't beat them join them' and throw ethics out of the window.

C H Yak said...

Q
Would a reputable lawyer advise a client to write a contract that is "within the law" but in essense is cheating the public?
UQ

The reputable lawyer could do it but the country's law would make that contract "void" in law if it is indeed to "cheat".

Cheating in contract is fraud, a criminal offence. On a lesser degree, it could be "fradulent misrepresentation" which has various contractual implications and remedies in Contract and/or under Common or Case laws for the aggrived, as long as he can afford to fight the case. Who has the legal muscle?

The law is quite clear, it is often that the on people are "ignorant" about the technicalities in contracts and legal principles.

Hence, the laws would be clear as enacted or in practice. It is often under the Common Law system which reputable lawyers can "flip and turn" with case laws.

The legal language and system is a "trap" for the commoner, which allows the lawyers, both reputable and small, to make hell alot of money...it then falls back on the personal integrity of lawyers...strictly speaking the commoner as a Client gives "instructions"...and this is another loophole.

Reputable lawyers are often connected to the Govt. and judiciary, and could exercised undue influence. They are best in flipping and turning with case laws.

It is common knowledge that both "rights and wrongs" could be thrown in a Court case for a judge to decide...just the way it is reported in a Night Newspaper but written in legal language. The reputable lawyers have the advantage against the smaller lawyers, in terms of resources and experience(support from the firm).

And only big corporate firms can afford the reputable lawyers. Also the "long-term" clientele advantage.

It is important how "double standards" and the extent of which are condoned within the legal system (Govt + Judiciary + Professional Body) and the legal practice, which is supposed to be governed by stringent Acts and bye-laws.

Just like there are doctors who are more daring in using certain medicine effectively, there are within our judiciary particular judges who are more "daring" in dispensing legal medicine. There may not be total quacks but there would be minor quacks whom reputable lawyers can take advantage of ... because in for the commoners ... this legal highway is never fast-track and safe, when you run out of petrol there may not be petrol station in sight on this highway even if you have some money to pay for the last drop of petrol.

Unknown said...

I have seen this in several major corporations I have worked for. Individuals have morality - companies tend not to. I find that if people I work for say "its not your job to worry about that" then almost certainly the line is being crossed.

I reported a S$3M bad deal to a major MNC that I worked for a few years ago. The saleperson was fired and a number of managers had their commission affected when the deal was removed from the books. My career path hit a roadblock (I was revenue affecting) and I "chose" to resign.

Unfortunately the truth can rarely afford a big lawyer and does not need advertising.

The medical business is the best example of this. The best investment to improve peoples health is changing exercise, eating,drinking and smoking habits.

But all of the big money is made in treatment like drugs etc. So the free golf weekend goes to the doctor who orders the most drugs not the doctor who has the healthiest patients

Chee Ming said...

Hi, Mr. Tan,

I'm not a lawyer, neither do I study/studied law. But as a member of the public, I think the answer to your questions is "Yes".

"Yes", they have a duty that is above making money; "Yes", they have a moral duty to ensure that the society is honest and fair; "Yes", it is their duty to protect their client from being prosecuted under the law, and what his client does is not his concern. The last answer has answered your first question. As for the second answer, some just choose to be ignorant about it.

@C H Yak:

I think a word coined by George Orwell in 1984 (the novel, not the year) fits your description. Doublethink.

Anonymous said...

Whistle Blowing , although encouraged by MAS in ALL insurance companies, is a white elephant in place to please MAS compliance requirement only but cannot be enforced. Why?
1..Will your collegaues report against their colleagues?
2..Is it confidential?
3.. Will the confidente act on your complaint?
4..It won't work becuase everyone is doing it.So long the culture is product pushing and the company accepts it to bolster the bottom line all eyes are closed to mis-selling.
Whistle blowing is a dead mechanism
becuase the company culture promotes mis-selling and misrepresentation. We all know company pays lip service to ethics.
The best way is for MAS to set up one for public and practitioners to report malpractices in the indsutry.

C H Yak said...

@Chee Ming
"I think a word coined by George Orwell in 1984 (the novel, not the year) fits your description. Doublethink."

Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique of self-indoctrination: "Doublethink . . . is a vast system of mental cheating" (George Orwell)...???

And what about "Double-bill" in legal costs?...is it 2 movies for the price of 1 or vice versa - 1 movie for the price of 2?

Anonymous said...

The law profession is a PROFESSION. That means it has a higher duty and a moral duty already. However reality is quite different. This is why I have very low regard for the profession in Singapore. The truth hurts.

Anonymous said...

In Singapore when one has to fend for oneself, it has breed the u die your business mentality. Verty sad.

Tan Kin Lian said...

I wish to ask the vile person to stop posting insults against me continuously in my blog. At least, have the courage to show your real name, rather than be an anonymous "bastard".

Anonymous said...

History and fact seem to show that morality and money are never bedfellows. It is one or the other.

Or, am I too cynical of mankinds ?

Blog Archive